Fancy Pants Pearson Will Not Get His Job As A Judge Back

Fancy Pants Pearson Will Not Get His Job As A Judge Back

Roy L. Pearson Jr, Also known as “Judge Fancy Pants,” has had his most recent lawsuit thrown out of court by a federal judge. In this episode, Fancy Pants sued the government of Washington D.C. for refusing to reappoint him as a administrative law judge following his notorious $54 million pants lawsuit.

Litigious $54 Million Dollar Pants Judge Loses His Appeal

Litigious $54 Million Dollar Pants Judge Loses His Appeal

Remember Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson’s $54 million dollar lawsuit against a dry cleaner that lost his pants? Well, he’s lost his appeal, says CNN.

$54 Million Pants Case Back In Court

$54 Million Pants Case Back In Court

Roy “Fancypants” Pearson, the ex-judge who sued a dry-cleaner for $54 million over a misplaced pair of pants, that the cleaner even offered to replace, is continuing to press his case. He lost his original suit, he lost his job, now a court has agreed to hear his appeal. This man gets the award for worst…consumer…ever. Video inside.

Roy "Fancypants" Pearson Sues City For $1M To Get Job Back

Roy "Fancypants" Pearson Sues City For $1M To Get Job Back

According to AP, former Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is suing to get his old job back and tacking on $1 million in damages. You may remember Pearson as the judge who tried to sue a dry-cleaner for $54 million over a pair of pants. Now, “Fancy Pants” says he was wrongfully dismissed and “vilified in the media.” Whichever way you slice it, he wants money. Details, inside…

$54 Million Dollar Pants Judge May Lose Job

$54 Million Dollar Pants Judge May Lose Job

City sources said a marathon meeting of the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges ended late Monday with agreement to meet again next week to finalize wording of a letter explaining the panel’s doubts about granting Pearson a 10-year term on the bench. Pearson’s initial term expired at the end of April, at the height of his legal battle against the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE.

Dry Cleaner Victorious In The Case Of The $54 Million Dollar Pants

Dry Cleaner Victorious In The Case Of The $54 Million Dollar Pants

Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is probably crying his poor, litigious little eyes out this morning. He’s lost his infamous $54 million lawsuit against a local DC dry cleaner. Pearson originally sought $65 million in damages after the cleaner allegedly gave him the wrong pants.

Judge Suing Dry Cleaner For $54 Million Cries In Court

Judge Suing Dry Cleaner For $54 Million Cries In Court

“Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices,” Pearson said in his opening statement. You don’t get a lot of firsts in recorded history in D.C. Superior Court, though I should add that Marion Barry was in the building for his day in traffic court, and the pants suit easily outdrew the ex-mayor-for-life.

It gets better. One of Fancy Pants Pearson’s witnesses testified, comparing the Mom and Pop dry cleaner to Nazi Germany:

“At 89, I’m not ready to be chased,” she said. “But I was in World War II as a WAC, so I think I can take care of myself. Having lived in Germany and knowing the people who were victims of the Nazis, I thought he was going to beat me up. I thought of what Hitler had done to thousands of Jews.”

Wait. It gets better.

DC Judge Reconsiders Demands, Now Wants Only $54 Million For Misplaced Pants

DC Judge Reconsiders Demands, Now Wants Only $54 Million For Misplaced Pants

You may remember Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson; he sued his Korean cleaners for $65 million after his pants were misplaced, claiming signs promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” constituted consumer fraud. Judge Fancy Pants has reconsidered his suit, and has reduced his demands to only $54 million. The cleaners’ attorney thinks Fancy Pants is being unreasonable:

Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a “reasonable” person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

We think this is the perfect case to be adjudicated either by Judge Judy, or the Judge Judy Soundboard. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER